coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 3 December 2001 the applicant lodged an action for damages against two individuals. The Trnava District Court's decisions concerning the applicant's obligation to pay court fees and the appointment of a legal‑aid lawyer to the applicant were examined by the Trnava Regional Court for approximately half a year.
6.  On 11 October 2006 the Trnava District Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees. On 28 September 2007 the Regional Court upheld that decision. The latter was served on the applicant on 14 January 2008 and thus became final.
7.  On 23 August 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It held that the case was not complex and that the applicant's conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. It awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), which was the equivalent of 531 euros (EUR) at that time in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the District Court to proceed without further delay. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs by paying SKK 5,788 to the lawyer. The amount corresponded to approximately half of the sum claimed by the applicant.
8.  On 23 April 2008 the Constitutional Court declared another complaint inadmissible. The complaint was lodged on 19 January 2008 and delivered to the Constitutional Court on 23 January 2008. To the extent the applicant alleged that his right of access to a court had been violated, the view was expressed that the applicant had not exhausted the available remedies as he had not lodged an appeal on points of law. The Constitutional Court further rejected the applicant's length of proceedings complaint. That finding was based on the Constitutional Court's long established practice to examine length of proceedings complaints only when proceedings were still pending at the moment when a constitutional complaint was lodged.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 14 and 18 November 2003 the applicant lodged an action for damages against the Bratislava II District Labour Office. Originally his two identical submissions were given two file numbers and were assigned to two judges. As from 16 December 2003 they were dealt with together by one judge under one file number.
6.  The Bratislava II District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court examined a number of procedural issues. The applicant repeatedly modified his action, requested that the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Justice join the proceedings as defendants, challenged the lack of impartiality of a judge, requested that the District Court exempt him from the obligation to pay court fees and appoint a legal-aid lawyer to represent him in the proceedings.
7.  On 6 August 2008 the applicant informed the District Court that his legal-aid lawyer had died.
8.  On 27 November 2008 the District Court dismissed a part of the applicant's claim and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the remaining part.
9.  On 7 January 2009 the mail with the above judgment sent to the applicant's lawyer was returned to the District Court. The postal delivery report indicated that the lawyer had not collected the mail.
10.  The stamp on the judgment indicates that the latter became final on 23 January 2009.
11.  Following the applicant's request, the judgment was served on him on 19 May 2009. He appealed on 1 June 2009. The proceedings are pending.
12.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's length of proceedings complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, concluding that the applicant had not complained thereof to the President of the District Court. The complaint about the assignment of the applicant's case to another District Court judge in 2003 was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
13.  On 7 February 2008 his second complaint was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that there had been a short period of inactivity in 2004 but stated that this fact did not warrant the conclusion that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It held that the applicant's conduct had notably contributed to their duration and due to his actions the District Court had been prevented from proceeding with the case. It further rejected the complaint about the assignment of the case to another judge as being manifestly ill-founded.
14.  On 4 November 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected a third length of proceedings complaint on the ground that it concerned the matter already examined on 7 February 2008. It held that the period of several months that had elapsed was too short to examine the complaint. It also noted that that conclusion did not prevent the Constitutional Court from examining the applicant's fresh complaint in the future.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Warsaw.
6.  On 22 March 1993 the applicant's mother lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a claim for a declaration that a notarial deed was null and void (in the framework of inheritance proceedings). The action was instituted against five defendants.
7.  On 30 September 1993 the proceedings were stayed.
8.  On 15 January 1994 the applicant's mother died. On 10 January 1995 the applicant confirmed that she wished to continue the proceedings in her stead and requested that the proceedings be resumed.
9.  On 22 October 1996 the court refused to resume the proceedings, stating that the applicant had failed to comply with the court's order to produce the inheritance decisions concerning the defendants.
10.  The applicant lodged numerous requests for the resumption of the proceedings, to no avail. She submitted that the courts had refused to serve on her the requested decisions, since she was not the defendants' relative.
11.  On 20 September 2004 the proceedings were eventually resumed on the applicant's request.
12.  On 16 November 2004 the court held a hearing.
13.  On 13 April 2005 the court stayed the proceedings. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision.
14.  The applicant lodged two motions for the resumption of the proceedings. They were dismissed by the court on 23 October and 15 December 2006. The applicant lodged an appeal against the second decision.
15.  On 23 October 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the decision of 15 December 2006 and resumed the proceedings. The court held that the decision of 13 April 2005 was ill-founded since there were no legal grounds for staying the proceedings.
16.  On 22 October 2008 the court held a hearing.
17.  On 23 October 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant's plea as unfounded. On 3 December 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
18.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004. She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw Regional Court had been excessive. She asked for the acceleration of the proceedings and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
19.  On 6 September 2007 the Warszawa Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court held that on 17 September 2004, the date on which the 2004 Act had entered into force, the proceedings in the case had been stayed. Therefore, in the court's opinion, there was no undue delay on the part of the trial court. The court further found that after the resumption of the proceedings on 20 September 2004 there had been no inactivity for which the Regional Court could be held responsible.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Viničné.
5.  On 12 November 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava Regional Court against a limited liability company. She claimed, among other issues, to have the right to consult the company's documentation and to enter its premises. In this way the applicant wished to receive information allowing her to lodge an action for damages against the company. The Supreme Court, on appeal, found in her favour. The decision was served on the applicant on 7 July 2003, it thus became final.
6.  At the applicant's request, on 29 September 2003, the Pezinok District Court appointed an enforcement officer to enforce the above decision. Due to the inactivity of the enforcement officer, the applicant requested that the decision be enforced by a court. The enforcement by the enforcement officer was discontinued on 9 March 2005.
7.  The enforcement proceedings were then pending before the Bratislava III District Court. On 14 April 2005 they were discontinued on the ground that the defendant company had been dissolved and wound up. The decision became final on 17 May 2005.
8.  In the meantime, on 18 April 2005, the applicant complained about the inactivity of the enforcement officer to the Association of Enforcement Officers. On 24 October 2005 the complaint was rejected as being manifestly ill-founded. On 19 March 2007 the Ministry of Justice concluded that the applicant's complaint was justified. It informed the enforcement officer that no disciplinary proceedings would be initiated.
9.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant complained before the Constitutional Court about, among other issues, the overall length of the proceedings. On 21 September 2005 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the complaint about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court held that the civil proceedings had ended on 7 July 2003, that is more than two months before the applicant had lodged the constitutional complaint. As regards the period of the enforcement by the enforcement officer, it held that the applicant did not use the available remedies pursuant to the Act on Enforcement Officers and Enforcement Proceedings, that is a complaint against an enforcement officer or a request that her case be assigned to another enforcement officer. It examined the period of the enforcement proceedings pending before the District Court and found no delays in that phase.
10.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as being manifestly ill-founded and noted that at the time when the applicant had requested enforcement of the judgment of 2003, the defendant company had already been dissolved. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 14 November 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Voronezh.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant sued the local branch of the Pension Fund claiming that his monthly pension had been calculated in a wrong manner.
8.  On 10 September 2002 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted his claims and ordered that the pension due to the applicant be recalculated and increased.
9.  On 19 December 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment, which became final on the same day.
10.  On 23 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia granted the respondent's application for supervisory review and transferred the case for a fresh examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court.
11.  On 1 February 2006 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgments of 10 September and 19 December 2002 and delivered a new judgment dismissing the applicant's claims in full.
12.  As from February 2006, the amount of the applicant's monthly pension has been decreased by 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Kremenchug, Ukraine.
5.  At the material time the applicant worked as an accountant at the Cherkasytransgas State company.
6.  In May 1998 the authorities revealed a shortfall of 70,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in the Cherkasytransgas accounts. On 30 November 1998 the local police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for embezzlement of State funds. On 20 January 1999 criminal proceedings for forgery and negligence were also instituted.
7.  On 26 January 1999 criminal proceedings against M. were instituted in connection with the same episode of embezzlement. On 1 April 1999 criminal proceedings against the applicant and M. were joined.
8.  On 21 September 1999 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.
9.  The criminal proceedings against M. were terminated on 22 October 1999.
10.  On 1 December 1999 the applicant's case was sent to the court.
11.  On 18 April 2000 the Kremenchug Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement of State funds and sentenced her to ten years' imprisonment. The court also ordered confiscation of any property belonging to the applicant.
12.  On the same day the applicant was imprisoned.
13.  On 7 June 2000 the Poltava Regional Court (since June 2001 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal) quashed this judgment and remitted the case for additional investigation.
14.  On 15 August 2000 the applicant was released.
15.  In the course of the investigation several expert reports on handwriting, accountancy and technical criminal questions were submitted.
16.  By 11 January 2001 the additional investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the court.
17.  On 3 December 2003 the Kremenchug Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement and sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. The court also disqualified the applicant from holding positions of financial responsibility for three years and ordered confiscation of any property belonging to her.
18.  On 12 March 2004 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal reduced the applicant's sentence to three years and six months' imprisonment.
19.  On 11 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine lifted the three year disqualification from holding positions of financial responsibility and upheld the remainder of the decisions of 3 December 2003 and 12 March 2004.
20.  Subsequently the applicant requested the Supreme Court of Ukraine to review the case under the extraordinary review procedure but to no avail.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Poltava, Ukraine.
5.  By judgment of 1 February 1999 the Kyivsky District Court of Poltava (hereafter “the District Court”) ordered U., a private company, to reinstate the applicant at work and pay him salary arrears in the amount of 1,916.20 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, about 425.95 euros). This judgment remained unenforced.
6.  On an unspecified date the debtor company had undergone a reorganisation, changing, inter alia, its name from U. to K.
7.  In view of that fact, on 28 May 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the same court, seeking a declaration that K. had succeeded U. In this regard he also claimed salary arrears in the sum of UAH 1,916.20 (which corresponded to the amount already awarded to him by judgment of 1 February 1999) and other payments allegedly owed to him by K. company.
8.  The first hearing was scheduled on 20 September 2001. It was adjourned since the case was transferred to another judge.
9.  Between 21 September 2001 and 20 December 2002 the District Court scheduled six hearings, two of them were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear. On two other occasions the hearings were adjourned since the both parties failed to appear. One hearing was adjourned at the applicant's request, and one since the judge was involved in other proceedings.
10.  In the period from 21 December 2002 and 19 May 2003 there was no procedural activity.
11.  Between 20 May 2003 and 17 February 2004 the District Court scheduled three hearings, two of them were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear and one because the judge was ill.
12.  The hearings scheduled for 18 February and 8 April 2004 were not held as neither of the parties appeared before the District Court. For this reason, on the latter date the District left the applicant's claim without consideration. On 24 February 2005 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, ruling on the applicant's appeal, found that the applicant had not been properly summoned and, accordingly, quashed the decision of 8 April 2004 and remitted the case for further examination on the merits.
13.  On 26 August 2004 the Poltava Commercial Court liquidated K. company and the latter was subsequently removed from the relevant companies' register.
14.  Between March 2005 and July 2005 the District Court scheduled two hearings. The both were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear.
15.  On 30 May 2005 the District Court asked the Poltava Tax Inspectorate to provide it with information about the company. On 15 June 2005 the latter informed the District Court that the company had been liquidated.
16.  In July 2005, after the applicant had learned that K. company had ceased to exist, he requested the District Court to terminate the proceedings. Accordingly, on 27 July 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 3 July 1999 the applicant, who was seventeen years old at the material time, was taken into police custody by police officers from the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters.
6.  On 12 July 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code with membership of an illegal armed organisation.
7.  On 5 November 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged, along with ten other persons.
8.  On 25 June 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was thus remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court and registered under case no. 2002/220.
9.  On 25 September 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to separate the case against the applicant from case no. 2002/220, since he was under the age of eighteen at the time of committing the alleged offences. The Istanbul State Security Court accordingly declared its lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Istanbul Juvenile Court.
10.  On 21 October 2003 the Istanbul Juvenile Court decided that it would be to the applicant's benefit to be tried alongside the other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court. The Istanbul Juvenile Court accordingly declared non-jurisdiction and referred the case back to the Istanbul State Security Court.
11.  On 10 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court accepted the Istanbul Juvenile Court's decision and re-joined the applicant's case to no. 2002/220.
12.  On 11 May 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's release pending trial.
13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court which, on 27 February 2007, convicted him.
14.  According to the information in the case file, the case is currently pending before the Court of Cassation.
5.  The applicant company is a bank incorporated under the laws of Germany and is located in Stuttgart.
6.  In 1994 the applicant company had acquired real estate consisting of land, parts of which are designated as agricultural land, and a house in Tyrol. The land was subsequently sold to the company “de Vos Hotelbetriebs GmbH” (hereinafter “de Vos”), a limited liability company incorporated under Austrian law that was active in the hotel business. The contract was signed by the parties on 4 and 20 September 1996 respectively.
7.  On 23 September 1996 de Vos notified the transaction to the Real Property Transactions Authority (Grundverkehrsbehörde). Under the Tyrolean Real Property Transaction Act (Grundverkehrsgesetz), transactions concerning certain categories of real estate are subject to approval by the said authority.
8.  On 6 May 1997 de Vos filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) to the Tyrolean Real Property Transactions Commission (Landes-Grundverkehrskommission) as the Real Property Transactions Authority had failed to decide on the case within thesix-month period provided for by law.
9.  In its decision of 16 October 1997, the Real Property Transactions Commission refused to authorise the transaction. This and subsequent decisions of the Real Property Transactions Commission were served on both de Vos and the applicant company.
10.  On 9 February 1998 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court.
11.  On 26 February 2001 the Constitutional Court set aside the Real Property Transactions Commission's decision of 16 October 1997 and referred the case back to it.
12.  On 29 November 2001 de Vos filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Tyrol Regional Government, which the latter rejected on 31 January 2002 for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there was no higher authority to which jurisdiction could be transferred after the Real Property Transactions Commission.
13.  On 20 February 2002 the Real Property Transactions Commission refused authorisation of the transaction as regards certain parts of the real estate; it granted the transaction as regards other parts of the property.
14.  On 25 April 2002 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court about the refusal to authorise the transaction with regard to parts of the real estate.
15.  On 1 March 2005 the Constitutional Court set aside the decision refusing authorisation.
16.  In January 2008 the parties were asked whether there had been any essential changes regarding the facts. In the end of May 2008 the applicants were asked to submit their comments on the question whether the land in issue was being used for agricultural purposes. On 9 July 2008 the Real Property Transactions Commission again refused to authorise the transaction regarding parts of the real estate.
17.  On 26 August 2008 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court; the case is still pending before that court.